Yes I actually found that first one myself, you'll note that there is explicitly no evidence. "I have met allies who can report [...] He declined to give details [...] Nato's press office said the remarks were Rasmussen's personal views, not official policy [...] geology, rather than political concerns, was likely to be the main obstacle". So this guy says the environmental groups have been compromised, they say they haven't been, he declines to give even the vaguest semblance of evidence.

Your second article starts with the exact same quotes from the same guy. It at least tries to outline some circumstantial evidence, but the author doesn't seem to find it very convincing and I don't either.

There were a number of articles in 2014 spurred by a single quote from this one person, and absolutely nothing since then. I think the circumstantial evidence against these claims is equally strong: anti-fracking activism was increasing worldwide around this time, including in countries like South Africa and Tunisia that are not particularly hostile towards Russia. You can see a good list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracking_by_country. Fracking is simply unpopular almost everywhere.

I don't doubt that Russia viewed fracking as an economic threat, but I will need even the tiniest bit of evidence before I seriously consider the possibility that actually fracking is very popular and people only protested because they were getting paid.